Survey: Evangelical leaders really don’t want to endorse politicians

Regarding the Johnson Amendment, it strikes me that to get rid of it, you’ve really got to get rid of the 16th Amendment and the income tax. I can’t fault people for being a little grouchy that their groups are NOT tax exempt and endorse politicians, while ours ARE and might soon do so.

And as much as I’d favor getting rid of the 16th Amendment, I sure am not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. :^)

from the pulpit that is fine with me. But, the government should force pastors to NOT mention politics from the pulpit. That is the point.

They can say (for example):

• Abortion kills image bearers and is murder
• Government’s role is defined Scripturally and xxx program is not part of that definition
• God is the One to define marriage
• Sodomy is sin and “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals …” (1 Cor 6:9)
• Debt is a plague and when a government borrows 1/3 of what it spends there will be consequences someday

What they cannot do is endorse candidates (it should stay that way)

Sodomy is the subject that is going to destroy first amendment religious liberty.

I had a typo in my post above. I meant to say that the problem is government has no business telling a church what they can do or not do. While you might think a pastor endorsing a politician is bad, the government should not force a pastor to not endorse a politician. Period. Thus, I support overturning the Johnson rule on the principle of religious liberty.

Also let me say, I support Ted Cruz, and I support Rafael Cruz. In fact, I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary.

There are many ways for an elder to endorse a candidate without using the pulpit of the church:

For example:

• A bumper sticker on his private car
• A yard sign in the yard of his private home (not the parsonage)
• His private blog
• post on social media

there is no need or value for an elder to use the sacred desk of the church’s pulpit to endorse a candidate

When a preacher preaches the Word of God, he has divine authority behind him. When he offers his political opinion from the pulpit and thinks it may influence his congregation he’s deluding himself. If he thinks he is the source of information that his church knows little or nothing about, he’s insulting their intelligence.

The point is IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS to tell a pastor that he cannot endorse from the pulpit.

[Mark_Smith]

The point is IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS to tell a pastor that he cannot endorse from the pulpit.

Under current law it is …

Net: Want the benefits of 501(c)(3)? Live by the rules of 501(c)(3).

Thus the movement to overturn the law restricting the rights of pastors that had no moral basis!

….what leads to this. Yes, there is apparent gerrymandering of districts by both parties—California is infamous for this, and I just saw what I consider fairly clear evidence in Pennsylvania as well. Yes, it’s unfair that pastors are under 501C3 rules and all that. But the root cause of this is that we abandoned the Founders’ principle that direct taxation was prohibited, but rather federal taxes should have been duties, imposts, and the like. Here’s the Heritage foundation on the topic.

So in the world we inhabit today, the right of pastors to speak freely on political (and other) subjects is balanced with the 16th Amendment and, yes, Obergefell v. Hodges. So instead of demanding everything now, I think we need to look at the “long game” of persuading people first of all to Christ, and then to persuade them that the “goodies” they’re getting from Uncle Sam simply aren’t worth the cost, and that the “protections” they’re getting from government also often aren’t worth the trouble, either. A final piece of the puzzle is to select judges who understand that there is no “penumbra of privacy” in the Constitution, but rather that the Constitution simply limits what investigations the government can do. Roe, Obergefell, and other decisions are all based on this idea.

What makes anyone think that the pastor is uniquely qualified to endorse a candidate? I don’t think so

We have half a dozen pastors in our church. One is very involved in politics. Can you imagine this mess:

• Pastor A (let’s call him the Sr Pastor) endorses Cruz in the primaries
• Pastor B … John Kasich
• Pastor C … Trump
• Pastor n … anther guy

Then we have (I think) 20 deacons

• Deacon A = this guy
• Deacon n = et cetera

My pastor is a smart guy but I don’t look to him for advice about:

• Medicine
• Investing
• Construction
• Cars
• Politics

Ditto to Jim’s comments. A preacher who opines on politics is not much different than the Hollywood actor who does the same. While they have a right to their opinion, their expertise in their profession does mean that their opinion is worth more than any else’s. He has a right to speak but that doesn’t mean he should.

I currently serve in a church (for the next few weeks anyway) in the suburbs of Washington, DC. We have Democrats in our church (yes, they’re born again!), Union members and supporters, people who think our current president is either wonderful or a fool, and independent, strong single women who need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. They love Jesus, His Church, and the Gospel. Some of them work in government. When they come to church, they don’t need more politics.

It strikes me that there is a good place for politics in the pulpit; to remind the congregation that politics does not come above our allegiance to Christ, and to call them to be honest about who’s in, or running for, office. To say “hey, folks, your choice this year is between a philanderer and the wife of a philanderer who ran interference for her husband’s philandering. Ain’t no easy moral choice here..” I have to wonder whether the nasty tone of politics might calm down quite a bit if pastors simply said “vote for who you like, but please, let’s not spread nonsense about your, or the other party’s, candidate.”